Download Sarmiento PDF

Tags Treaty Holy See Public International Law Vatican City
File Size1.2 MB
Total Pages135
Table of Contents
                            DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
Restrictive Application of the Doctrine of State Immunity
	Q: How are the regular diplomatic representatives classified?
Q: The Ambassador of State X to the Philippines bought in the name of his government two houses and lots at Forbes Park, Makati. One house is used as the chancery and residence of the ambassador, and the other as quarters for nationals of State X who are studying in De La Salle University. The Register of Deeds refused to register the sale and to issue Transfer Certificates of Title in the name of State X. Is his refusal justified?
	Attentat Clause
Doctrine of Reciprocity
Document Text Contents
Page 1


Public International Law
2008 LEI Notes in

Disclaimer: The risk of use, non-use and misuse
of this material shall be solely borne by the user.

“Nam omnia praeclara tam difficilia quam rara sunt”
For all that is excellent and eminent is as difficult as it is rare

-Spinoza on Ethics

Page 134

respectfully manifests:

That respondent Imelda R. Marcos owns 90% of the subject-matter of the above-entitled case, being the sole
beneficiary of the dollar deposits in the name of the various Foundations alleged in the case;

That in fact only 10% of the subject-matter in the above-entitled case belongs to the Estate of the late President
Ferdinand E. Marcos;"

118 Rollo, p. 2464, quoted from the December 18, 2000 memorandum of respondent Mrs. Marcos:

"On the other hand, the opponent to the appeal, formally the owner of the assets to be seized and restituted, has
not been involved in the collecting procedure pending in the Philippines. Even though such opponent is nothing
but a legal construction to hide the true ownership to the assets of the Marcos family, they nevertheless are
entitled to a hearing as far as the proceedings are concerned with accounts which are nominally theirs. The
guarantees of the Republic of the Philippines therefore must include the process rights not only of the defendants
but also of the formal owners of the assets to be delivered."

119 240 SCRA 376, 469 [1995].

120 Supra.

121 Id at 470-471.

122 Substantially the same as Section 11, Rule 3 of the old Rules of Court.

123 Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. – Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for the
dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its
own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may
be severed and proceeded with separately.

124 Same as Section 7, Rule 3 of the old Rules of Court.

125 Supra note 3 § 265 (2000)

126 Id citing Gentry vs. Smith (CA5 Fla) 487 F2d 571, 18 FR Serv 2d 221, later app (CA5 Fla) 538 F2d 1090, on
reh (CA5 Fla) 544 F2d 900, holding that a failure to request the joinder of a defendant was excused where the
moving party's former counsel, who had resisted the joinder, abruptly withdrew his appearance and substitute
counsel moved promptly to join the corporation.

127 Supra note 3.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Lawphil Main Menu

♦ Constitution

Page 135

♦ Statutes

♦ Jurisprudence

♦ Judicial Issuances

♦ Executive Issuances

♦ Treatise

♦ Legal Link

Similer Documents